Talk:Ptolemy class
Appearance I don't see any evidence that this is what the Ptolemy looks like. The name appeared in ST:II, but we never saw the ship. The same goes for Saladin/Hermes. Jaz 15:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) : What do you mean? They all did indeed appear on a display in Star Trek II (and III), therefore we saw them. That's evidence enough. --Gvsualan 16:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: An excellent case of the use of on-screen data was seen here recently. The Maquis ship from Caretaker was called the Zola until the name Val Jean was shown on a computer screen in . -- Excelsior 16:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) : If damning evidence is what you require, read this article at Trek Place, and that'll set ya straight. --Gvsualan 16:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Gvsualan, there's no need to get angry at Jaz for merely questioning the canoncy of this image. If he was simply unaware of Trekplace's article on this matter, how was he to have known the Ptolamy class did appear on screen..? Ottens 16:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :When or where exactly did I say I was angry? And to answer your question, with or without the Trekplace article: "The Ptolemy class starship was seen on a display in the Starfleet Academy's training simulation in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, thus canonizing its existence." --Gvsualan 17:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) I stand corrected. Is it possible to get a screenshot from the movie where the ship appeared? Jaz 04:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::this image shows the screen three of the ships appeared on, all in the matter of a few seconds. The screen was showing dreadnoughts from a different angle at a different point in the movie. Since it was an unmodified scan of the Technical Manual page, that artwork is a canon production material, covered by the "image paramount" tag, since it was used in a paramount production -- i'm going to replace the image with this. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk :::Gvsualan, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted "damning evidence". It sounded rather harsh to me... Ottens 18:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :It was moreso the fact that upto finding that link on google, it was always hearsay that it was seen in ST2, as was mentioned on the page. My interpretation of what Jaz was saying in his first post was that the reference mentioned in the article was not true...and not that it was just overlooked. Anyway, the Trekplace page was, even to me, damning evidence -- putting to sleep anyones doubt about the hearsay. --Gvsualan 18:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Apparently, I indeed misinterpreted what you said. My apoligies for that. Ottens 18:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Copyrighted images The schematic of the Ptolemy that has been part of this article is of a copyrighted image. Memory Alpha contributions are pursuant to the Memory Alpha:Creative Commons License (see Memory Alpha: Copyrights for details.) We cannot have material copied from the interior of books included in this manner if we hope to hang our collective hat on "fair use" exceptions to U.S. copyright. Please do not reinsert the schematic. Aholland 02:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC) :Aholland is right. Does anyone have a screencap from when that page of the schematic was shown (it was taken right out of the manual and being on screen, it would certainly be fair use). Jaz talk 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC) ::Maybe we should add the specifications from the book thet were on this image ? - Philoust123 13:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC) If the specifications are added, they should only be added as background since they, themselves, are non-canon. And we should be careful not to copy so much it is essentially the same as reproducing the page. I would advise against it, frankly, because of the extraordinarily limited information on this class in the movies themselves. But having said that, if someone wants to take the time, who am I to argue? Aholland 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC) ::: Doesn't the use of the page in the film, make it production material, and fair use that way? So the four pages used would be fair use, but not any of the other pages. —MJBurrage 19:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC) No, it wouldn't. We can use the image as shown in the movie, but not the source art work from a published book, even if the art work was what was shown. Rather like the difference between using a film clip of a painting in a movie versus simply using a separate photo of the painting itself. Many artists get quite upset about such things. Copyright and fair use just don't work that way in the U.S. Aholland 20:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC) ::::If you insist on removing images, at least be good enough to either a) post it on the talk page or b) mark it for deletion. Otherwise the image gets lost and forgotten in the , and at which point simply take up space. --Alan del Beccio 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry - I didn't realize. I'll go ahead and mark it for deletion. Thanks! Aholland 01:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC) ::::Aholland, can't we publish a single or small group of images from a publication? isn't that what you did in your comic strip article? ::::I'm re-instating the image. -- Captain M.K.B. 23:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Captainmike, please take a look at Memory Alpha:Files for deletion, wherein I explain that they are not the same thing and that the Ptolemy image should still be deleted. Although I recognize why you might have been confused, the difference is recognized by courts, by academics, and by laypeople who follow such matters. Aholland 10:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Identified Ships Okay, I can accept that the Ptolemy class exists in canon because of a momentary glance on a screen that, with extreme squinting, can be traced most probably to something close enough to the image from the Star Fleet Technical Manual. However, where do the names/registries of the two ships mentioned here come from? The USS Ptolemy (NCC-3801) and the Unknown (NCC-4000)? Aholland 01:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC) :NCC-4000 was seen onscreen, labeled onto a cargo container, in a Tech Manual page. :NCC-3801 is visible on the USS Ptolemy itself in the schematic. -- Captain M.K.B. 23:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC) "USS Ptolemy" I think we should discount the name "USS Ptolemy" for the ship NCC-3801. The reason is that the page from the manual that featured the Ptolemy-class did not make a single reference to a "USS Ptolemy". All it should was a ship with a registry NCC-3801 and described it as a "Ptolemy-class tug/transport". Thus, I think we should rename the "USS Ptolemy" article to "NCC-3801", and treat the name as non-canon. -- 13:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC) : Indeed true. That has been rectified. --Alan 17:46, January 30, 2010 (UTC) Original research I removed the following This ship (like all of the Technical Manual's ships) has been derided by some as contrary to Gene Roddenberry's design requirements for Starfleet ships, because while it is in 'tow' configuration, the nacelles do not have line of sight on one another. There is nothing in canon that actually dictates a line of sight requirement, and, indeed, many canon vessels (such as the Sydney-class) would also violate this rule. For being too much akin to original research. If need be to discuss Roddenberry's apparent nacelle policies, they can be centralized on the nacelle page with cite-able sources. --Alan 17:46, January 30, 2010 (UTC)